Bill Kaufmann

Sarah Palin's all-but-declared candidacy looks like the Ultimate Bubble: both her supporters and detractors have to fill in much which she is unable to articulate. Not a fan of hers, I worry as much as anything that she will find a "voice." Perhaps the unknown is the scariest, but there seems to be something truly ugly growing on Americas' political right flank. What we do know is plenty bad enough, but the more the teabaggers insist that the rest of us "just don't get it" the likelier it appears there is more to the beast.

Fratermal: Good point about people being free not to own a car. If only we could somehow be protected against disease which might spread more widely because some people can't afford to see a doctor! Seriously, I understand you, like I, wish that treatments were available for more people. The problem really is one of who pays (bottom line we all pay, in one way or another). For decades we have searched for the magic bullet which would bring stability to medical costs; if one existed the HMO's probably would have found it. Pretending that limiting availability of basic care and even preventative care is cost effective has gotten us nowhere. Those with the means to make health care universal aren't eager to "be their brothers' keeper." Even without some pandemic which might have been avoided by having broader coverage, I think we need to be ready to look at new approaches. That is why, since I have a lot more questions than answers myself, I am very happy about the compromise Senators Ron Wyden and Scott Brown have developed which will allow states to "experiment." Whatever works sounds good to me. You may have more details about this than I do but the latest word I had was very encouraging.

Lynne97030 I definitely agree with you. I think we in the lower 98% of income levels pay the taxes the top 2% and their minions whine about. The reason? That is what THEY say. Any time a tax is discussed, rather than trying to prove the money will be spent unwisely, one of their first arguments is consistently that they would have to raise prices (on everything from fast food to cars). The real losers,
it is claimed, will be those at "the bottom of the food chain." So which time are they telling the truth, when they insist that taxes will be passed down or when they complain about the huge burden they themselves are bearing?
I especially like the practicality of your ideas and your obvious concern for those less fortunate.
Keep your entries coming!

Isn't it interesting that some will claim "the rich" pay such a massive proportion of the taxes while attempting to gain sympathy for the wealthy. When it is more convenient, however, they insist that those same taxes will be shifted to the middle and working classes--in the form of higher prices. In more than one way the well off seem to be "making their money work for them, rather than working for their money!"

It baffles me when many of the same people who oppose a "mandate" that people have health care insurance seem to be not the least bothered that automobile owners/drivers are "compelled" to pay for insurance. Sure they may damage others' property, but are we to ignore the fact that the only people who benefit from health care aren't the sick? Think about communicable diseases. Do "our Constitutional protections depend upon their convenience?